Long range barrel profile

Centre Punch, increasing sight radius between front sight (or fore sight) and rear sight (or back sight) doesn't help aiming. The shooter sees the same angular error between line of sight and line to target for a given angular displacement regardless of the distance between the two sights. Increasing sight radius reduces the amount of impact change per click on the back sight and makes it easier to see for eyes that have degraded somewhat; that's all.

OK, now that I've said that, dozens, hundreds or thousands of folks will say I'm wrong. But if each one of these naysayers looks into an aperture rear sight through twelve front aperture sights all aligned in a straight line and 3 inches apart (the furthest one being 36 inches in front of the rear sight; typical of Palma rifles), they will notice that for a given amount of misalignment with the downrange target, each one of those twelve front sights have the same angular error relative to the target's bullseye and they'll all stay aligned with each other.

The reason people who compete in Palma matches have long 30-inch or so barrels is to get muzzle velocity high enough (at least 2900 fps) with a 147- to 155-gr. bullet from a .308 Win. to stay supersonic through 1000 yards at sea level. In the USA, Palma rifles could use any weight bullet and 190- and 200-gr. bullets worked well in 26-inch barrels. Since 1992 the Sierra 155-gr. bullet has become the world standard and it bucks the wind better at 3000 fps from a 30-inch barrel than a 190 leaving a 26-inch barrel at 2550 fps.

[ QUOTE ]
Goodgrouper and UncleB, maybe you know something I don't know. What's the typical 20-shot group accuracy you think someone could attain at 800 yards with one of those whippy, 30-inch long Palma barrels that's only about .800-inch at the muzzle weighing about 5 pounds?

Benchrest competition rifles shoot aggregates of several 5- or 10-shot groups that average about 1/2 moa at 600 yards and about 7/10ths moa at 1000 yards with their stiff barrels. And yes, these rifles sometimes shoot a single group that's smaller. How do you think a whippy, less stiff Palma barrel would compare?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, Goodgrouper and UncleB, I guess you two have chose not to cross the "line in the sand" so I'll give you some facts.

In the late 1960s, a 13 pound .308 Win. on a Win. 70 action was tested at 600 yards. 40 consecutive shots went into 1.9 inches.

In 1971, tests were made with a 13-pound rifle using a Winchester 70 action with a medium weight whippy 26-inch barrel at 600 yards shooting the .308 Win. Several 10-shot groups were fired and they ranged from 1.5 inches down to 0.8 inches.

In 1991, another test with a rifle using a Winchester 70 action was made at 600 yards with .308 Win. ammo using new cases charged with metered (not weighed) powder was made. It had a long, whippy 30-inch Palma barrel and put 20 consecutive shots into 2.7 inches.

In 1993, another .308 Win. Palma rifle based on a Paramount action was tested at 800 yards and it put 20 consecutive shots into 3.2 inches.

Over a period of 15 years, a .30-.338 Win. Mag. on a Winchester 70 action was tested 6 times at 1000 yards; twice with each of three barrels. It's 28-inch long whippy medium weight barrels were able to have all of those 15-shot test groups under 7 inches. Some of the 5-shot strings were under 2 inches.

All of the humongus benchrest rifles with extremely stiff barrels used today are no more accurate than those using the whippy barrels mentioned above. If you're not aware of this, you must not be hangin' out in the shooting discipline where there are people that know about it.

[ QUOTE ]
Well, Goodgrouper and UncleB, I guess you two have chose not to cross the "line in the sand"

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I don't know exactly what this means, but if you mean we didn't want to start the old pot stirring then you are correct. I, for one, am not interested in expending energy to dispell all the so called "facts" you rattled off. I have been answering questions and disqualifying myths for many years and quite frankly, one more guy going against all known basic principles and general common knowledge related to firearms just to stir crap up and confuse people really doesn't concern me at this point. If you want to keep on believing that pillars are not needed in a bedding job, and there is no such thing as overweighting a receiver, or to say a pencil barrel is as accurate as a bull barrel, then by all means go right ahead. It makes no difference to me. I have stacks and stacks of actual published literature directly contradictory to your statements (as well as many others here surely do) but that means nothing unless you want it to. I only fear that beginners are getting mixed signals as to what to do when they build rifles or bed a stock. It is for them that I step up and get a little non-diplomatic when Bart B starts typing. Ask any of the knowledgeable gunsmiths here if they believe skinny barrels are better or more accurate than heavier barrels. They probably would have already answered but they are in a position on here where they have to be more diplomatic. I'm not. I try to be patient and try to be polite and if that means ignoring someone or not stepping over a line in the sand, then that is what I generally try to do.

Your above example means nothing. It is not detailed enough, does not have controlled conditions, and has no author. For all we know, the barrel may not have been a #9 contour, but it may have been a #5 and was more accurate than a #3. Who knows. Without more context, nothing can be derived from it. HOwever, you can pick up a copy of Precision shooting magazine, or a copy of "Understanding firearm ballistics" by Robert Rinker. They will enlighten you.

I will comment on this one last thing before I end this coverstation just because I have had a dozen people email me and ask what is right or wrong in this thread this week.
Anyone who has ever developed a precision reload sequence for a pencil barrel along side a heavy barrel will immediately notice a difference in the two. The heavy barrel is much more tolerant of a variety of loads and is more consistently accurate from day to day. This is old hat. YOu ain't foolin me buddy. It is much harder to get the bulllet to leave the skinny barrel in the exact same point in the oscillation because <font color="red">THE SKINNY BARREL ABSOLUTELY OSCILLATES WITH HIGHER FREQUENCY AND GREATER MAGNITUDE THAN THE STIFFER (HEAVIER) BARREL! </font>

If you want to debate and argue basic points of firearms, go to accurate reloadings website.

If you want to get nasty and uncivil, take it offline. My email address is listed in my profile if you wish to attack me personally. I can't guarantee I'll read anything you send me, but at least it will keep it off LRH.

If you want to do both, than we may have just flushed another troll from our midst.

Remember when you debated me about fluted verses non fluted barrels. Remeber how you said removing any material from a bull barrel reduces its regidity??? You said "The thicker a barrel is for a given caliber and length the less it will bend." that is a quote from your post

Looks to me like maybe ya need to decide which side of the fence you are on

Lerch, yes, I remember about the fluting stuff. This issue is not about whether or not a skinny/whippy/light barrel is more rigid/stiff than a fat/heavy one. I already know that thicker ones for a given length are stiffer.

Give me a barrel's dimensions as well as whether it's 416 stainless or chome moly steel and I'll calculate what it's resonant (or fundamental) vibrating frequency is with one end held still and the other end free to vibrate; most are around 40 to 60 cycles per second (the answers may surprise folks). A mechanical engineer working with vibration problems for civil engineers' construction issues gave me the computer software (which I'll share with anyone who wants it). Here's an example:

This issue is about which barrel (stiff or whippy) is or can be most accurate. All I've stated is that there is no difference accuracy wise; both can shoot equally as good. But so many folks haven't quite understood that. Go back and read what I've said and you might understand what I'm talking about. I don't know how I can make it any simpler.